The Queen v Manager

The case of *The Queen v Manager* involved a reservation of points of law by the prosecution concerning the interpretation and application of section 21B of the Evidence Act (NT). The central dispute revolved around the admissibility and procedure for presenting pre-recorded evidence of children and individuals with intellectual disabilities in criminal proceedings, particularly in sexual assault cases. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Martin (Br) CJ, Mildren and Thomas JJ.

The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on the scope and operation of section 21B of the Evidence Act (NT), which provides for the pre-recording of evidence for certain vulnerable witnesses. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the "examination-in-chief" could be pre-recorded while the witness remained available for oral cross-examination, or if the entire evidence, including cross-examination, could be pre-recorded. Further questions arose regarding the definition of "proceeding" for the purposes of section 21B and the circumstances under which such pre-recorded evidence could be admitted.

The court's reasoning centred on the legislative intent behind the Evidence Reform (Children and Sexual Offences) Act 2004 (NT), which introduced section 21B as an extension of existing provisions designed to protect vulnerable witnesses. The court analysed the text of section 21B, distinguishing between the two options it presents: the pre-recording of examination-in-chief (s 21B(2)(a)) and the pre-recording of the entire evidence, including cross-examination (s 21B(2)(b)). The court emphasised that under the first option, the witness must be available for cross-examination, whereas the second option allows for the entire evidence to be given and recorded at a special hearing. The court also considered the definition of "proceeding" in section 4 of the Act, finding it to be broad enough to encompass various stages of legal actions.

The court ultimately ruled that the prosecution could elect to have the examination-in-chief of a child or a person with an intellectual disability pre-recorded, with the witness remaining available for oral cross-examination. However, the court clarified that the second option, where the entirety of the evidence including cross-examination is pre-recorded, also remained available. The court's decision affirmed the availability of both procedures under section 21B, subject to the court's power to rule evidence inadmissible or make other orders to facilitate its presentation.